IRC log of CSS on 2009-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:56:29 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #CSS
15:56:29 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/06-CSS-irc
15:57:07 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has now started
15:57:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.354.aaaa
15:57:34 [plinss__]
zakm, +1.858.354 is me
15:57:47 [plinss__]
zakim, +1.858.354 is me
15:57:49 [Zakim]
+plinss__; got it
15:57:51 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
15:59:10 [glazou]
Zakim, code?
15:59:10 [Zakim]
the conference code is 78953 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), glazou
15:59:30 [glazou]
grrr the bridge keeps telling me passcode is not valid
15:59:59 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see plinss__
16:00:22 [arronei]
arronei has joined #CSS
16:00:26 [plinss__]
hmmm, works for me...
16:00:30 [Zakim]
+[Mozilla]
16:00:36 [Zakim]
+glazou
16:00:36 [glazou]
ah finally
16:00:58 [emilyw]
emilyw has joined #css
16:01:13 [Zakim]
+Bert
16:01:28 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:01:39 [Zakim]
dbaron, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: plinss__ (21%)
16:01:49 [plinss__]
calling back in...
16:01:56 [Zakim]
-plinss__
16:02:03 [plinss__]
echo now?
16:02:05 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:02:15 [Zakim]
dbaron, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Mozilla] (94%), glazou (15%)
16:02:17 [Zakim]
-glazou
16:02:21 [dbaron]
glazou, no, the sound was my fault
16:02:24 [Zakim]
+plinss__
16:02:31 [Zakim]
+glazou
16:02:39 [glazou]
I still have the noise
16:02:48 [Zakim]
-[Mozilla]
16:02:51 [dbaron]
does that help?
16:02:53 [glazou]
YES
16:03:00 [glazou]
that's you dbaron
16:03:05 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:03:13 [dbaron]
it happened even when I muted
16:03:15 [dbaron]
wonderful
16:03:28 [glazou]
dbaron: so it's the line, not the microphone
16:03:45 [Zakim]
+??P18
16:04:02 [Zakim]
+??P19
16:04:17 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
16:04:33 [CesarAcebal]
CesarAcebal has joined #css
16:04:37 [sylvaing]
sylvaing has joined #css
16:06:16 [glazou]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:06:27 [Zakim]
glazou, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (5%), ??P18 (14%), ??P19 (100%)
16:07:29 [sylvaing]
Zakim, [Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:07:29 [Zakim]
+sylvaing; got it
16:08:11 [fantasai]
zakim, mute ??P19
16:08:11 [Zakim]
??P19 should now be muted
16:08:21 [fantasai]
zakim, unmute ??P19
16:08:21 [Zakim]
??P19 should no longer be muted
16:08:28 [fantasai]
zakim, who is here?
16:08:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bert, plinss__, glazou, [Microsoft], ??P18, ??P19
16:08:29 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has sylvaing
16:08:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see sylvaing, CesarAcebal, emilyw, arronei, dbaron, RRSAgent, Zakim, plinss__, glazou, MoZ, MikeSmith, karl, anne, myakura, fantasai, plinss, plinss_, Hixie, Bert,
16:08:34 [Zakim]
... trackbot, krijnh
16:08:34 [fantasai]
zakim, ??P18 is fantasai
16:08:34 [Zakim]
+fantasai; got it
16:08:41 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has left #css
16:09:33 [Zakim]
+[Mozilla]
16:09:34 [dbaron]
Zakim, mute [Mozilla]
16:09:35 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] should now be muted
16:09:51 [dbaron]
Zakim, [Mozilla] has dbaron
16:09:51 [Zakim]
+dbaron; got it
16:11:38 [fantasai]
ScribeNick: fantasai
16:11:46 [dbaron]
Zakim, unmute [Mozilla]
16:11:46 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] should no longer be muted
16:12:58 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
16:13:18 [sylvaing]
Zakim, [Microsoft] has arronei
16:13:18 [Zakim]
+arronei; got it
16:13:21 [fantasai]
Topic: SVG property coordination
16:13:24 [plinss__]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0001.html
16:14:06 [fantasai]
glazou: I think it's extremely good to see the SVG working group discussing these things with CSSWG
16:14:13 [fantasai]
glazou: But I'm not sure what actions should be done to help here
16:15:36 [fantasai]
fantasai: They mention some incompatibilities with 'width' and 'height', we should look into those
16:16:02 [fantasai]
fantasai: The other ones... they seem very strange for CSS properties, but I don't know what else to do with them
16:16:20 [fantasai]
Bert: Maybe Chris know about them?
16:16:25 [fantasai]
s/know/knows/
16:16:30 [fantasai]
Bert: We could discuss it at the F2F
16:16:43 [fantasai]
glazou: We could let them know that we will discuss this at the F2F in June
16:16:54 [fantasai]
ACTION glazou Reply to Doug
16:16:54 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-143 - Reply to Doug [on Daniel Glazman - due 2009-05-13].
16:17:07 [glazou]
arrrghhh noise
16:17:09 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:17:22 [Zakim]
dbaron, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:18:16 [fantasai]
Topic: TPAC
16:18:33 [fantasai]
?: Do we know what's going on with TPAC?
16:19:09 [fantasai]
fantasai: Doug Schepers was going to look into a joint meeting with SVG, HTML, WebApps, and us, but HTML apparently hasn't even heard of this so it doesn't seem he's looked into it much
16:19:19 [fantasai]
Bert: There will be a TPAC, just smaller than usually
16:19:22 [fantasai]
s/ly//
16:19:43 [fantasai]
glazou: mini-TPAC doesn't seem to be moving forward, so we should make sure we are part of TPAC
16:19:55 [fantasai]
peter: at least not preclude ourselves from attending
16:20:17 [fantasai]
Topic: Saloni's Old Issues
16:20:19 [plinss__]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0518.html
16:21:04 [fantasai]
Peter: There was a note to update the proposal for Issue 72?
16:21:12 [fantasai]
Sylvain: Yeah, the issue is that nobody does what is in the spec
16:22:36 [fantasai]
Sylvain: We recommend adopting the proposal
16:22:52 [fantasai]
fantasai: I think we need to add that the effect of these extra cells on the table is undefined
16:23:40 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Proposal accepted as stated in issues list (Issue 72)
16:25:17 [fantasai]
Sylvain: We agree with proposal in Issue 73
16:25:25 [fantasai]
RESOLVED: Proposal accepted for 73
16:26:19 [Zakim]
+SteveZ
16:28:00 [fantasai]
Issue 117
16:28:01 [plinss__]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0004.html
16:29:03 [dbaron]
I disagree with some of his editorial proposals.
16:29:21 [fantasai]
I'm going through them, and I'll be posting a response to www-style about those
16:29:26 [fantasai]
but this one's just about the line-height issue
16:29:47 [fantasai]
I also disagree with some of his editorial edits
16:30:42 [dbaron]
Can you hear me?
16:30:54 [dbaron]
I guess not.
16:31:08 [dbaron]
So I think this is a known undefined issue
16:31:10 [glazou]
no dbaron
16:31:12 [dbaron]
which we plan to solve in css3
16:31:17 [dbaron]
could somebody say this for me?
16:31:29 [dbaron]
I think it's the issue of what happens when the tallest thing in the line is bottom/top aligned.
16:31:35 [dbaron]
the position of the rest is undefined
16:32:29 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Bert, plinss__, glazou, [Microsoft], fantasai, ??P19, [Mozilla], SteveZ
16:32:31 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has arronei
16:32:31 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has dbaron
16:33:03 [fantasai]
fantasai: should we call this out as explicitly undefined?
16:33:16 [sylvaing]
ie8 and webkit match the first test (alignment.html)
16:33:16 [fantasai]
SteveZ: What about testing it?
16:33:31 [fantasai]
Peter: I don't think it's hard to test, just have to see if we have implementations
16:34:02 [fantasai]
SteveZ: I think we should take a week to investigate and find out if there's any guidance we can give, even if we can't resolve it
16:34:08 [dbaron]
I guess we don't say anything about it being undefined.
16:34:21 [sylvaing]
opera 9.64, Firefox 3.5b4, Chrome and ie8 all match on the strut.html test
16:35:07 [dbaron]
I'm not sure 4b is an issue.
16:35:14 [fantasai]
SteveZ: I think comment 4c is correct
16:35:21 [dbaron]
We just don't describe it as a strut, I think.
16:35:24 [dbaron]
although we sort of do
16:35:44 [dbaron]
I guess perhaps the problem is that we describe it as a strut rather than as the anonymous inline box.
16:35:54 [dbaron]
and this would all fall through cleanly if we did the latter
16:35:58 [CesarAcebal]
zakim, ??P19 is CesarAcebal
16:35:58 [Zakim]
+CesarAcebal; got it
16:38:44 [fantasai]
fantasai: I remember this getting discussed a long time ago, when I first joined www-style. The strut wording was accepted as a compromise because some WG members didn't want to introduce an anonymous inline box
16:38:52 [dbaron]
I think it was because Tantek wanted to make only minimal changes since we were almost done with CSS 2.1. :-)
16:38:56 [fantasai]
(that encloses all the inline contents of a block)
16:39:19 [fantasai]
SteveZ: I don't understand how the anonymous inline box would solve this problem cmp struts
16:41:16 [fantasai]
Bert: The anonymous inline box is empty, so it wouldn't have height
16:41:33 [fantasai]
fantasai: It's not empty, and empty inline boxes don't get collapsed unless they're the only thing in the block
16:42:36 [fantasai]
fantasai: we're talking about the /root/ anonymous inline box, which is a concept that doesn't exist in the spec except in the text-decoration section
16:44:25 [fantasai]
Steve proposes deferring to next week
16:44:50 [dbaron]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:44:53 [glazou]
aaaargggghhh
16:45:01 [Zakim]
dbaron, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: plinss__ (9%), glazou (5%), CesarAcebal (60%)
16:45:13 [plinss__]
zakim, mute cesaracebal
16:45:13 [Zakim]
CesarAcebal should now be muted
16:45:31 [fantasai]
Deferred to next week
16:47:27 [fantasai]
fantasai will be responding to this email and filing issues as necessary
16:47:49 [fantasai]
Peter: There are a bunch of issues still open that need work
16:48:01 [fantasai]
Peter: I want to make sure someone is working on each of them
16:48:53 [sylvaing]
arronei volunteers for 53
16:49:02 [fantasai]
:)
16:49:14 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #css
16:49:16 [sylvaing]
arronei for 69 also
16:49:51 [fantasai]
assigned
16:50:18 [sylvaing]
I thought 111 was done as part of Bert's last spec update ?
16:50:34 [fantasai]
no, that was some other issues :)
16:50:41 [fantasai]
we're still waiting on jdaggett to rpopose text
16:50:43 [sylvaing]
oops
16:51:02 [dbaron]
I suppose I could take 26
16:51:23 [fantasai]
makes sense
16:51:42 [fantasai]
arronei, can you take 107?
16:52:08 [fantasai]
bzbarsky is working on 109 and 110
16:52:08 [sylvaing]
arronei says yes
16:52:12 [fantasai]
cool
16:52:42 [Bert]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/dom.html#the-style-attribute
16:53:03 [sylvaing]
sylvaing wants to learn about z-index so will take 60 (and probably regret it)
16:54:24 [fantasai]
fantasai, I'll take 89
16:54:40 [sylvaing]
sure
16:54:42 [sylvaing]
will take 61
16:54:53 [glazou]
sorry guys, I need to leave the call, my migraine is so painful I cannot stand the headset
16:55:14 [fantasai]
111 is jdaggett
16:55:19 [Zakim]
-glazou
16:55:55 [sylvaing]
arronei can do the testcases for 114
16:56:17 [fantasai]
fantasai takes 115
16:57:26 [Zakim]
-SteveZ
16:57:28 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
16:57:29 [Zakim]
-[Mozilla]
16:57:32 [Zakim]
-plinss__
16:57:42 [Zakim]
-Bert
16:57:43 [Zakim]
-CesarAcebal
16:57:54 [Zakim]
-fantasai
16:57:56 [Zakim]
Style_CSS FP()12:00PM has ended
16:57:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.858.354.aaaa, plinss__, glazou, Bert, sylvaing, fantasai, dbaron, arronei, SteveZ, CesarAcebal
16:58:13 [fantasai]
arronei: thanks for taking on the testcases :)
17:01:02 [sylvaing]
arronei don't do prose :)
17:03:22 [arronei]
yeah not problem I'll do the test cases then we can see where we need to go from there
17:17:15 [fantasai]
Issues list updated
17:18:51 [sylvaing]
me:"I have issues to work on" girlfriend:"I know"
17:24:14 [fantasai]
that was just asking for it :)
17:26:02 [sylvaing]
true.
18:17:01 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
18:52:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #CSS
19:21:08 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #css
19:43:52 [szilles]
szilles has joined #css
21:04:19 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #css
21:59:00 [sylvaing]
acid3 references an empty.css style sheet through the link element; the response, however, is text/html. The test verifies that it's ignored. I'm trying to find the normative reference(s) for this. CSS? HTML? HTTP ?
22:33:33 [Hixie]
HTTP
22:47:45 [sylvaing]
ok. having a hard time finding locating it. remember which area ?
22:48:18 [fantasai]
The relevant sections are 14.17 and 7.2.1
22:48:47 [fantasai]
The spec isn't very clear about this, though
22:49:01 [fantasai]
I do remember it was a huge issue when CSS was introduced, though
22:49:12 [fantasai]
Apache used to send a Content-Type header with text/plain
22:49:39 [fantasai]
for .css files
22:49:41 [fantasai]
by default
22:51:57 [fantasai]
See also HTML 4.01 section 14.2.1
22:52:45 [sylvaing]
thx !
22:53:47 [sylvaing]
not super clear i.e. nowhere does it say one should match the 'style sheet language' with the response type and fail if they don't match
22:54:00 [sylvaing]
s/fail/ignore